TotalAlisa said:

When MJ wins a Grammy, an Emmy & an Oscar then I'll believe you.
But as of now Chita Rivera & Liza Minnelli have him beat.
[Edited 8/13/07 19:10pm]

TotalAlisa: As a MJ fan, I have to admit that this thread is not helping his image and that of his fanbase, a number of whom -- but not all -- are just as raving mad as Elvis and Beatles fanatics. I know it was your intention to demonstrate why you think MJ is so great....

Yes, from the late '70s to the late '80s MJ was the best singer, dancer, and all-around entertainer in the world. Not even Prince could touch him. But starting with the Dangerous Tour, something was amiss. The singing was not as good and the dancing not as spontaneous. Sure, he stil had incredible stage presence and charisma. Just look at the reaction of his audience! But it was not the same as it used to be.

His work at Motown and with The Jacksons at Epic were wonderful and more than qualifies him as one of the most influential R&B male solo artists (top ten). He was a child prodigy, simple as that. The fact that he started so young in show business and that he did not burn out at a much earlier age shows that he had the drive and the passion to create classic, timeless music and entertain as best as he could for a long time. But following the 1993 accusation and the release of HIStory, his meglomania took over. His kiss with Lisa Marie Presley at the MTV Awards smacked of desperation.

Face it, the curtain closed over a decade ago. The HIStory Tour demonstrated that MJ is no longer the performer that he used to be. Sure, I would rather see him mime and do his long-tired robotic moves than most other popular acts right now, but we all know he used to be much more than just the moonwalk.

And the "King Of Pop" title. Yes, in the '80s he was the "king" (cringe). And no, Elizabeth Taylor was not the first to call him that. Check out newspaper clippings from the Bad era and you will note that fans started calling him the "King Of Pop" before she did. But the title is hurting him now more than ever. The media, a number of fans, and the general audience all expect him to sell millions of albums again. If he does not, most will see him as a failure.

To be honest, I do not think he has his former drive and passion. But, does that lessen what he did in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and even '00s? Not at all. The fact that there are countless threads on the org on MJ and that he still has one of the largest fanbases in the world speaks volumes about his former glories.

We still have his studio recordings, clips of his past performances, and music videos. And I hope MJ will release more b-sides and unheard tracks in the future. And DVDs of the Bad, Destiny, Triumph, Victory Tours, etc...

With that being said, I do not share the opinion of some that his voice is "gone" or that he "cannot sing." Of course, his voice has deteriorated over the years, but his singing on such tracks as "We've Had Enough" and "Heaven Can Wait" still move me. While the dancing is not what it used to be, and there is no longer an explosion of energy on stage, if he ever feels like channeling his creativity through music again, I will, for sure, support him.
[Edited 8/14/07 1:53am]

TotalAlisa said:

Why is MJ always greater than Elvis & Prince & all other male performers - why have you never named any women? Don't you think thats a tad sexist?

thedoorkeeper said:

I suppose TotalAlisa and EmbattledWarrior could have mentioned Madonna and Beyonce.... But I doubt a lot of people would agree that it is sexist to believe that MJ and Prince are better entertainers than either Madonna or Beyonce.
[Edited 8/13/07 19:38pm]

Rodya24 said:

He will always be MAGIC

Rodya24 said:

Madonna and Beyonce, wtf?
Oh you said entertainers...
ok, you got that, But Janet got them pegged

TotalAlisa said:

Any thread that tries to give Props to Paula Abdul has no merit.

lazycrockett said:

MajesticOne89 said:

that woman might be crazy... but the lady can dance and helped janet to dance as well... she even choreographed a few jackson videos.... and some for PRINCE

TotalAlisa said:

Paula Abdul FFC(Fucked for choreography)
How else did she get the opportunity to choreograph "Torture" and "Body"? She was fucking Jackie! And the dancing was so hilarious that Mike and Jermaine didn't bother to show up

TotalAlisa said:

that's one of the silliest things that I've read about Prince, coming from a MJ's fans.
Prince - Reflection (live f Wendy)
http://www.dailymotion.co..._music/1
But you can prefer the non-singing, non-musicians playing, robotic dancing, megalomaniac so-called "concerts" of the "kop".
1986 UTCM premiere party, Prince was on fire! Elvis & James would be proud:-)
http://www.dailymotion.co...y_events/1

*
[Edited 8/14/07 1:45am]

michael jackson: 5 ft 9
elvis presley: 5 ft 11.75

Elvis is greater, case closed.

why some of you are so in denial or hate to accept the truth...its bewildering.

talent -wise elvis cannot see mj,mj wrote and composed his hits.

mj's music reached to more races,cultures,languages,something that elvis couldnt achieve, mj broke every possible barrier..fact.
,

Why do so many current MJ fans sound so naive and unsophisticated? I can understand what the thread is about and like many people I too think Elvis gets way too much credit, but the arguments of posters like TotalAlisa sound like an argument of an 8 year old. Infact I have heard 8 year olds argue more sophistically!

whatsgoingon said:

Its not just MJ fans, the Pseudo Princelectuals over at Music and More, are the same way. When you're a fan, ya gotta be a fan
thats all

seeingvoices12 said:

I agree with this.Elvis was great in his day,but I think Michael broke more barriers and reached a much wider audience.Back in 1983,even rock fans were buying 'Thriller'.I don't think Elvis ever had that same type of crossover success.

thedoorkeeper said:

Thank you. She lives in the same bizarro universe Wacko Jacko and his lunatic legion lives in.

SoulAlive said:

O'sure - in fact many acts that came after Elvis reached a much larger audience.
The record industry exploded in the sixties & Elvis was not part of that. He was a relic. Plus Col. Parker, Elvis's manager, would not let Elvis do tours outside of the US. Elvis could have had a totally different career if he hadn't been screwed over by the Parker. But Elvis let him take control. His legacy has been built since he died - it was in shambles at the time of his death.
Hell I think you could easily argue that Billy Joel reached a much wider audience than Elvis.

seeingvoices12 said:

THANK YOU

thedoorkeeper said:

its NOT about all the mumbo jumbo stuff you keep talking about... its about the music and how many people it influence and changed lives and influence...

michael clearly wins.... he had more years of experience then elvis... michael started as a baby...

thedoorkeeper said:

While I disagree with TotalAlisa and her need to convince the org that MJ is greater than Elvis, she makes the apt observation that what sets Michael Jackson apart from Elvis, and even U2, Madonna, Prince, etc. is the fact that in the '80s he was able to reach more races, cultures, and nationalities than any of the previously mentioned artists, who were the cream of the crop in terms of commercial success and name recognition.

Comparing Elvis and Michael Jackson is unfair since, like you pointed out, they are from different periods in history. MJ built on the fame he had with The Jackson 5, The Jacksons, and Off The Wall (he was already a global star in the '70s), and exploded with Thriller. The mass media was more penetrative than it was in the '50s. MTV was blossoming. And the timing was perfect. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, and several countries in Asia and Africa were going through mass industrial development (i.e. consequent closer contact with the West). There were also struggles for democratic reform and cries for further exposure to Western culture (in particular in eastern Europe: note the reaction of the Soviet government to the influence of Thriller).

The fact that MJ -- not Billy Joel -- still has one of the most recognizable names in the world is indicative of how successful Thriller was, and how he was able to build on his successes in the '80s with the Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory world tours.

But this post does not justify in any way why the question of this thread was asked in the first place. Perhaps it would have been wiser to title it "MJ verse Elvis: why do you like (or hate) either or both of them?" or "Why is MJ famous outside of the major commercial markets (US, UK, Europe, and Japan)?"
[Edited 8/14/07 9:43am]

Rodya24 said:

but what does reaching people have anything to do with being greater than elvis.
the sheer fact is saying someone is greater than someone else is lunacy
Its like saying my girlfriend is greater than your girlfriend?
Why? cause she's my girlfriend.
thats why this is a rediculous thread.
MJ is a great entertainer, but thats based on a opinion as well.
If you categorize dancing and lipsyncing/ putting on a great show as a great performance theny ou might like another type of artist
If you like musicianship, virility, and other type of stuff, you might like something else.
its all a matter of opinion.
Greatness is a trick, it doesn't exist it just promotes the stagnant western duality between good and bad.
Srry if im getting a lil eastern philosophy on you. But its true.
If you like elvis more than MJ cool
if you like MJ more than Elvis , cool
If you hate both and Dig Miles Davis, or Trane, or Prince etc...
Cool
It doesn't matter as long as you enjoy watching and listening to that artist.
as long as you like it no one can touch you.
And with that i leave this god forsaken thread,
Peace N B Wild
[Edited 8/14/07 9:52am]

EmbattledWarrior said:

I agree with you. I was not making the argument that MJ is greater than Elvis because people in Saudi Arabia and Korea are aware of who he is. I was supporting what TotalAlisa has been arguing from her first post: that MJ reached a more diverse group of people. In fact, I would argue that Elvis reached more people (judging from album sales), just not as diverse a group of people as MJ was able to. And again, it is unfair to compare the two since both are from different times.

seeingvoices12 said:

You sure about that, champ?

This greater than this artist and that artist is bullcrap.

Whatever, two legendary entertainers from two different eras... no need for a comparison.

End of thread.

Yeah but.....

But what?

We can discuss how Michael's black SUV has more horsepower than Elvis' pink Cadillac until our balls are blue, it still won't solve anything.

No freedom of speech should be violated just because not everybody in the whole frigging world loves Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley.

People love the both of them, people hate the both of them, some are indifferent but neither or should be regarded as "the best ever", you can express that if you want, don't mean it's entirely true for some people.

I used to be on the "greatest entertainer" trip until much recently. In my opinion, James Brown was "greater than" the both of them put together but again that's just my opinion, don't mean it should be taken serious as this shouldn't be taken serious.

Sometimes people spread drama over the silliest of things, it's really funny.

Timmy84 said:

When i State that michael is the greatest entertainer... its a fact...

TotalAlisa said:

Whatever floats your boat...

Michael Jackson has been a terrible live singer since the Dangerous tour! As great as he is he is a SHIT live performer, I'm sorry but it's just true, well at least of his singing. He's a great dancer but he mostly always does the same moves, with a few variations every now and then. He is most definitely NOT the greatest live entertainer ever. His studio output is great though.